On the subject of space exploration, some items from the archives:
The Inadequate And Resentful Should Not Be Put In Charge.
A “diverse group of thought leaders” opine on space travel. It does not go well.
We are, however, told that we need more deaf and disabled people in space. Because space exploration just isn’t difficult enough and dangerous enough as it is. And choosing astronauts with hearing problems, poor eyesight and motor-control issues will make things much more exciting.
And frankly. when you’re asking, apparently in all seriousness, how a mission to Mars would benefit Black Lives Matter, as if it somehow should, I think we can say that the foolishness in the room has risen to hazardous levels.
On the stupefying flattery of aboriginal mythology.
No “Eureka!” moments there. No recalibration of scale.
What’s notable about aboriginal “astronomy,” and aboriginal culture more generally, is that it stayed primitive, all but prehistoric, for such an incredibly long time.
You Will Pretend It Has Great Value.
At Montreal’s Concordia University, even light must be “decolonised.”
This “indigenous knowledge,” the particulars of which are elusive and treated rather coyly, will, we’re told, be “elevated” – presumably, above its station – while “Eurocentric western science” – or, you know, science – will be “de-centred and scrutinised” for any residual wickedness. Any oppressive taint. And hey, what better use could there be of other people’s time and money?
In Space No-One Can Hear You Scream.
In which we poke at the burning, worthless rubble of Scientific American.
Despite the list of problematic things and much furrowing of brows, it remains unclear what the “decolonisation” of SETI, and of astronomy in general, might realistically entail. “Listening to marginalised and historically excluded perspectives” is mentioned as imperative, though the specific benefits of doing so, and any consequent enhancements of twenty-first century science, are left mysterious and intriguing.
Whether those “Indigenous peoples and other marginalised groups” – these keepers of hidden knowledge beyond the ken of white devils – might have “biases” of their own, or any shortcomings at all, is not explored.
After some pre-emptive disapproval of the “colonial” violation of hypothetical microbes, whose autonomy and wellbeing would apparently be desecrated by human curiosity, we’re told that “making SETI more diverse” – i.e., giving influence and authority, and a salary, to people with no relevant skills – is a matter of great importance. “There’s really no downside,” says Ms Charbonneau.
The upside, however – i.e., the premise of the whole 2,300-word article – is, to say the least, a tad vague. Apparently, hiring Iroquois or Pawnee people, or Australian Aboriginals, or whoever is deemed sufficiently brown and therefore magical, would result in “the expansion of our pool of what civilisations might look like.” “It just makes sense,” says she.
Readers unschooled in intersectional woo may be puzzled as to why those chosen as suitably indigenous and put-upon would have much to add to the doing of modern astronomy and space exploration. A pivotal role in any success seems unlikely. Readers may also wonder why those who can construct orbital telescopes and land robots on distant planets should defer in matters of science to those who can’t.
For those craving more, this is a pretty good place to start.
Recent Comments